Third, the older AFD body is not officially supported on the newest Phase One and Leaf digital backs. It does work but it's occasionally glitchy.

This is news to me!

1) Define "glitchy".

2) What has actually changed? The Mamiya MSCE digital interface in the AFD and later bodies and later always seemed to be universally compatible with M-mount DBs. What you are implying is that there were different versions of the MSCE in the AFD and the AFD II. That's never been documented, AFAIK.

BTW, I am an former Fuji GX 680 user and it is not an option for digital no mater how familiar I am with it or how enamored. That system was designed to shoot 6x8 roll film not a 36x48 digital sensor. Digital is not film.

BTW, I am an former Fuji GX 680 user and it is not an option for digital no mater how familiar I am with it or how enamored. That system was designed to shoot 6x8 roll film not a 36x48 digital sensor. Digital is not film.

GoGo both the Hasselblad and Phase One systems are film systems retrofitted, modified for Digital.The Leica S2 is the only "almost" MF that was developed from the ground up for digital.

Like the Hasselblad the Fuji GX680 evolved into a digital camera but limited to the Japanese market.

The back was actually larger Than the 36x48 sensor size you refer to. It was a 20 MP+ sensor with a dual array of photosites, one for highlights and one for shadows37 x 52. The SuperCCD chip produced a 41.4 million pixel image (5408 x 7648).They are very hard to find.

Fuji decided to putt out of MF pro digital in "first person" so to speak when it made the arrangement to manufacture for Hasselblad and market it a Fuji gx645 in Japan where much of the camera was made.

If you look at the Fuji gx680 back you can clearly see that it could fit a 645 body, but Fuji chose to move most of it's efforts into far more profitable 3rd part manufacturing and it's own consumerproduct.

Here is a thread with a few forum users that use the Fuji gx680. Some examples of table top in their portfolios.

considering the added cost of the adapters for the mamiya and fuji platforms, does it make more sense just to get a hasselblad 500 series? (I know... its the cheapskate -- er , thrifty -- scot in me coming out..)

considering the added cost of the adapters for the mamiya and fuji platforms, does it make more sense just to get a hasselblad 500 series? (I know... its the cheapskate -- er , thrifty -- scot in me coming out..)

Adam - You could consider it, but unless you're drawn to that camera, your better option might be to go for a Mamiya AFD-II or (AFD-III). Might be another $300-$400 (a bit more for the AFD-III). And whose to say a Hasselblad 500 series with lenses would be less? It may not be.

*And at some point, (as someone else mentioned) you do need to ask yourself, if you're making too many budget-oriented compromises, that you aren't better off saving up some more for some better choices down the road a bit. For those who really want to shoot medium format digital, it can be done (relatively) affordably, but there are limits to how affordable, and at those edges, they do begin to call into question the worthiness of the pursuit.

Adam - You could consider it, but unless you're drawn to that camera, your better option might be to go for a Mamiya AFD-II or (AFD-III). Might be another $300-$400 (a bit more for the AFD-III). And whose to say a Hasselblad 500 series with lenses would be less? It may not be.

*And at some point, (as someone else mentioned) you do need to ask yourself, if you're making too many budget-oriented compromises, that you aren't better off saving up some more for some better choices down the road a bit. For those who really want to shoot medium format digital, it can be done (relatively) affordably, but there are limits to how affordable, and at those edges, they do begin to call into question the worthiness of the pursuit.

Steve HendrixCapture Integration

This is sage advice. You can do MFD on the cheap, but not too cheap.

Affordable V series Blads are old, and often out of spec. I shot my 501cm a few months ago with a Phase P21. Everything was "off": Intermittent sync failures, out of focus images. I sent the body and my 80mm CF in. The mirror needed to be adjusted, the hooks that hold the back needed adjustment, and the lens was, essentially, rebuilt. Note that I never had these problems with film. Getting the CLA wasn't cheap, about $650 all in. Note that this was a late model I bought new 10 years ago, and didn't use very often.

First regarding the cost of adapters for the Fuji gx680 you could opt for a simple chinese adapter plate, but be limited to shooting at 1/15th of a second. This is because the Fuji gx680 sends a 1/15th of a second pulse over the flash sync connector and that is used to trigger the back. You would also have to do a two shot sequence. One to wake up the back and the second to take the actual photo. you can do the two shot actually fireing the camera only once. You use the flash test button on the camera for wakeup and then fire the camera. IF you are shooting in studio with flash and can dimm or turn off the pilot lights this works fine. You could at least start this way and get an Kapture Group One shot for the gx680 later.

However there is another possibility that would give you very high IQ far better than entry level MF if you are shooting still lifeproduct shot. It's called the RhinoCam by Fotodiox. It lets you use MF lenses on in a very simple stitch mode using a Sony Nex camera.The stitch will take a bit longer than a single shot, but 90% of the time the actual camera shooting time is nothing compared to setting up the shot.

You have a full focusing screen to compose your shot, but also real live view for critical focus.

By stitching multiple 24MP high dynamic range Sony sensor captures the Rhino produces very high quality images that rival eventop of the line DMFB that cost over $20,000

IMO, unless your just in love with an older blad, or RZ, AND you can shoot in a less than pressured production, older digital takes a lot of work.

Like T and his blad, we go through the same thing with our Contax(s). I have 5 bodies, 5 viewfinders, double the lenses and out of all of that, including yearly service, I have two fully working systems, the rest are sketchy, and keep in mind contax was one of the few film cameras that was born with a digital interface and doesn't require cords and third party adapters to make them work.

The one thing about the Contax is the Zeiss lenses are always sharp and fast and have never required calibrating.

Given that if/when I buy a new MFD for professional work, I personally would look at it in two ways.

If I wanted to spend less and didn't have to worry about tethering I'd go with the Pentax, if tethering was important I'd go with the new H5d.

AT 7 grand the Pentax is virtually the same costs as my Canon 1dxs with lenses, if you shop legacy the lhe costs is less than the Canon.

The H5d40 is obviously more expensive, about double the costs, but with tethering, removable finder, software suite and in lens shutters does twice as much.

BTW: The H5d auto focuses better than any medium format camera I've ever seen. I mean it just snaps to the point and holds and does it quickly, almost 35mm quick.

I spent about 45 minutes trying to fool the focus on the h5 and rarely could. The H5 really is a refined version of the earlier H series.

If your not shooting for direct commerce I can understand using a camera that you like, regardless of the work or usability, but in the long run, the newer cameras in almost every format are very good.

Agree with Joe about doing your research and look at all the options, and your upgrade paths!

I'd have to go with Steve on the AFD2; have had one for years, as long as you go for primes. Then you can keep looking out for a Linhof 679cs going cheap, onto which you can stick whatever back you already own, buy a lens, and learn just how wicked camera movement can be.

I suspect that you'll quickly hit the buffers with a camera with no movement! Just my opinion.Jon